This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: Comic book / Marvel Cinematic Universe / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the Comic book films task force. This article is supported by the Marvel Cinematic Universe task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Comics: Marvel / Films Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Related work groups: /  This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group. This article is supported by Comic book films work group. Disney Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. 20th Century Studios Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject 20th Century Studios, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 20th Century Studios and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.20th Century StudiosWikipedia:WikiProject 20th Century StudiosTemplate:WikiProject 20th Century Studios20th Century Studios Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Cinema Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Is The Insider newsletter reporting an anonymous tip really an appropriate reliable source for stating that "Robert Downey Jr. is expected to appear as Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom in a post-credits scene." Rlendog (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sneider is a reliable source for genuine reports. The whole point of his article is that he knew about Downey playing Doom long before it was confirmed by Marvel. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous tips aren't what we rely when sourcing cast members. We wait for official confirmation.Even if the tip was accurate when he got it JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Journalists receive these types of tips all the time. That is how reporting is done, in Hollywood, in politics, business, etc. We can't say a source can't be used because of a common practice in how sources gather information. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but wonder if the RDJ info should be hidden in the cast. A huge spoiler like this so casually mentioned right in the cast section a year before the film's release seems out of place and unusual. I realize MCU articles contain spoilers, but they're usually confined to the plot and production sections, and when they're in the cast section, the big surprises are typically added either close to a film's release (when revealed by the trades or the studio), or after the film's release. Including a significant spoiler such as this front and center in the cast section a year out from release would spoil people who merely wanted to see who was in the cast. I propose we hide the info in the cast for now but keep it in the production section instead of welcoming every reader with a major spoiler. Aldwiki1 (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SPOILER, we don't hide spoilers. This is a report, there is no need to hide it. It is not our priority to contain spoilers like this as we present the facts. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are indeed free to contain spoilers, but these kinds of major spoilers aren't typically presented front and center in the cast section a year out from a film's release, which made me wonder if an exception could be made for this specific case, not to completely get rid of the spoiler, but to keep it confined to the production section for the time being, but it seems an exception can't be made so I'll respect that and move on. Aldwiki1 (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding content from certain sections where we otherwise would be happy to have it, just to avoid spoilers, is still a WP:SPOILER issue, even if the information is kept in a different section. You wouldn't be saying this if the film was out, so we shouldn't do it now. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioProtIV, please see the ongoing discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Jeff_Sneider_/_The_InSneider. So far the preliminary consensus seems to be that Sneider should not be cited without attribution, and the discussion is ongoing if his site should be allowed for contentious BLP claims at all. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why we ought to remove what is clearly labeled to be "expected" from the cast list. This is not a contentious claim. While the consenus in that discussion is veering to allow Sneider's reports with attribution only, I do not think this claim requires that because it summarizes how that is covered in the body of the article. We should not remove or hide verifiable information just because of some BLP policy when it is not directly about BLPs. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any reason to include an unconfirmed report on a movie's official page. Sneider frequently makes claims that turn out to be untrue; also, these movies are constantly in flux and anything can change at any moment. Given this, there's no reason to cite an unconfirmed report like this until the movie comes out and it turns out to be true. You're saying it's not false as long as we specify that it's "expected" rather than confirmed, but I would ask: what is the actual benefit of including something that has every chance of not turning out to be accurate? Trevorboyd97 (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We never wait for official confirmation, if information comes from a reliable source then it can be added. There isn't anything different with this situation. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure what the benefit of including this is. If it could turn out to be false, what's it doing on the page? Trevorboyd97 (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Verifiability, not truth would apply in this instance. We have a reputable source affirming something will happen, so that is reflected in the article. Should it ultimately not happen, than the article would be reflected to adequately address that, as had been done in the past with Downey's reported cameo in Black Widow. We do not just cherry pick what we want or do not want included in articles. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to get this squared away with a solid consensus because I have seen conflicting edits regarding whether we should include how the title is displayed in the logo in the lead or not, which was most recently removed by @BarntToust. For reference, the logo displays "the" lowercase, "Fantastic" is standard and the subtitle and Marvel Studios logo are all capitalized. The only outlier here is the use of the number "4" instead of "Four", though this is synonymous with the team's name and is not a major divergence from the actual title; they are even pronounced the same, so this is not a similar case to Fant4stic. MOS:FILMLEAD does not make the distinction as to whether a similar yet slightly different logo stylization is WP:DUE for a lead mention. I do not think it warrants inclusion here because it is not as drastic of a change compared to other film stylizations (barring the fact that the title is already long and including both makes the lead kind of unwieldy with the semi-repetition going on here). One does not lose any understanding of this film's subject if the stylization were excluded, and screen readers would read both titles the exact same way. I know we note Iron Man 3 is titled on-screen as "Iron Man Three" (one of the few MCU films to do so), but for the time being, it may be too early to call if this "4" stylization would hold any significance here as it has only been used for marketing purposes. It would be a different story if the billing block used it, but without one available, I think this should come to our discretion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As Trail mentioned above, I believe that a number being written as a digit instead of a word isn't due to point out in the lede. "t" versus "T" in the word "the" isn't either. as for the 2015 box office-bomb, I agree. That is stylisation and merits probably a note. BarntToust 21:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it is relevant to apply, but MOS:SPELL09 says to spell out integers between zero and nine. This tends to be a common practice in various Manuals of Style in the world outside Wikipedia. It may be the WP:COMMONNAME anyway. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never liked that we have stylization spelled out at Iron Man 3, the fact that they spelled out the number for the end credits really has no bearing on anything and I think the same can be said for putting "4" on this film's poster instead of "Four". The capitalisation is definitely not noteworthy considering most titles are in all caps on posters and logos and we never note that. "Fant4stic" and other situations where the logo has the number inside the name are different, especially when noted by reliable sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I too have not liked the Iron Man 3 stylization as it read as an unnecessary specification. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think the three stylization is purposeless as well. BarntToust 23:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and removed the Iron Man 3 stylization from that article to be consistent with this one, and have added edit notes at both articles regarding this. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trailblazer101: I am late to this, but on Iron Man 3 at least, including about "Iron Man Three" satisfies WP:RASTONISH. That should be retained, and likely here too. Yes, a reader searching Iron Man Three likely will expect to end up at the film, but we should note that because someone could choose to search those terms explicitly since they're used on screen. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was not aware of that. From how I read RATONISH, it seemed to apply mostly to redirects that may be ambiguous. I do not think readers searching for "Iron Man Three" would expect to be brought anywhere other than an article about Iron Man 3. To me, this reads as an unneeded technicality. I suppose the question bodes how useful is the distinction between the word spelled out and the numerical value of the title to our readers? I think some degree of WP:COMMONSENSE ought to apply here for readers looking for these films with the numerical value spelled out and vice versa. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think these both fall under "obvious close variants of the article title" at RASTONISH. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. BarntToust 23:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is what I was getting at. I see Favre moved the on-screen title mention at Iron Man 3 to its Release section, and I think that is applicable there. I think we ought to wait to see if this film's stylized title is used as often once it releases (ie on-screen) or if it is just for marketing. If it is stylized the same on-screen as it is in the logo, then I think this can be denoted with adequate sourcing, just in case it is heavily used by reliable sources. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MCU-specific versions (e.g. "Mole Man (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" instead of "Mole Man") of character articles for most of the characters in this movie do not yet exist and are just redirects to Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe letter-specific sub-articles which do not even have a section for the characters in question.

I changed the links to the existing article links (e.g. Mole Man) but was immediately reverted by an editor citing WP:MCULINKS.

However, WP:MCULINKS specifically states that links can point to the main articles rather than MCU-specific articles "if the section on the MCU list article contains substantially less information than the one on the comics article, or if no section exists on an MCU list article", which is exactly what is the case here.

When the movie comes out, and there is enough citable public information that an actual MCU-specific article or section can be written for these characters, by all means, change the links then. But until that is the case, having links that point to no information/discussion of the subject in question is completely unhelpful -- actually, more than that, it's outright aggravating and makes the links appear broken -- to readers trying to find out information about these characters.

Pre-emptively pointing the links to non-existent MCU targets is jumping the gun in a way that is hostile to readers. It is also completely unnecessary since the links can be easily changed once the articles or sections are written.

—Lowellian (reply) 21:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no section for the character at the current redirect target then those should be changed to redirect to the appropriate place. The MCU links should still be used here, regardless of where they redirect. The whole point is that the one link will always be able to point to the most appropriate place rather than us needing to go around fixing it in lots of places if the most appropriate target changes. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. If the redirect target is lacking sufficient information, than that can be carried over from the relevant articles. In my revert, I also pointed to WP:NOTBROKEN, which states redirects are not links that need to be fixed, especially when they are for potential articles that have a chance to be made in the future, like these ones. As an admin, I thought you would have been aware of this policy. Pre-emptively removing these MCU-specific links only to readd them once the film comes out would be counterproductive, and the focus should be on ensuring the targets include the relevant information, as well, rather than linking directly to the top of an article which may not be as direct for readers. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Robert Downey Jr. thing should be removed. This is speculation and has not been officially confirmed. 2001:56A:FA34:2E00:51F8:EE48:3B42:1812 (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per prior discussion above, this appearance is expected but, like many other things when it comes to Marvel, has not been confirmed and is unlikely to given it is meant to be an after credits stinger. The source qualifies as a WP:Subject-matter expert, so there is not enough justification to remove it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"and the second reboot of the Fantastic Four film series"

This is the third reboot, not the second: 1994 film, 2005-2007 films, 2015 film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.253.76 (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That film is not counted in this because it was never officially released, and the 2005 film is not considered to be a reboot of it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

shouldn't the article say that the film is set in a separate timeline from the Sacred Timeline? Visokor (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how the film has been primarily discussed in sources so far. That may change, especially when the film's relationship to the Sacred Timeline becomes more clear. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources that call it an alternate universe:

Variety: "...the film will be set in an alternate universe from the Sacred Timeline."

Deadline: "Set in an alternate version of the 1960s,"

TheWrap: "...the film takes place somewhere in Marvel’s multiverse outside the main timeline."

Variety: "...the world of the Fantastic Four ... is separate from other dimensions seen in the Marvel multiverse."

Variety: "'The Fantastic Four,' by contrast, is set in an alternate timeline,"

Empire Magazine: "...set in an alternate 1960s,"

GamesRadar (the official website of TotalFilm and SFX magazines): "...the film is set in an alternate universe" Aldwiki1 (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can add I saw a good source, don't remember where, that said that the Fantastic Four MCU team will start in alternate universe, but later will join the Sacred timeline. As far as I understood it will happen in Avengers 5 or 6, but I didn't see any Wikipedia acceptable source for this part. IKhitron (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of reliable sources have said that it's set in an alternate timeline, I just chose to share the high-quality ones. Just added two more to my message above. Aldwiki1 (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That to me seems likely, but is still speculation. As for the sources listed discussing this universe, I think that is enough to go off of to include in the article. We don't need direct confirmation from Marvel on this when it is pretty clear to be true now, based on the trailer alone. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]